So the battle is joined. First step is to challenge the procedure the NFL used to come to its judgment. Basically, it wasn't put to a vote of the teams. (PFT speculates 7 teams would have voted against it, thus sparing the boys and Skins.) A special arbitrator will decide.

The nuclear option of a court of law is still open to them.

John Mara of the Giants:

“What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks. . . . They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences.”

Hmmm. A loophole is a loophole. By definition, it means something not covered by the rules. "Spirit of the salary cap"? What does that mean? Did teams which stayed far below the cap also violate "the spirit of the salary cap"?

I think John Mara is right, in that it did violate the spirit of a salary cap. Unfortunately, Mr. Mara and the league MADE A DEAL with the NFLPA that there wouldn't BE a salary cap in 2010, for which the league GOT certain benefits (like the change in UFA in 2010). So honoring the spirit of a salary cap is in direct violation of THE DEAL, and doing so as a league is COLLUDING to violate THE DEAL. Punishing people who HONORED the deal is just Colluding in 72 pt type.

One week after having their salary caps reduced by $46 million over the next two seasons, the Redskins and Cowboys filed a complaint against the NFL and the NFL Players Association to have the discipline overturned.

Now this again is sloppy reporting because you file a claim SOMEWHERE. It looks like the teams are filing a claim to the Arbitration Board set in place under the new CBA. I wonder what the two teams claim against the NFLPA is? As best as I can tell the NFL sanctioned the two teams, although the NFLPA sort of winked at it. This is very interesting as the NFL is not sanctioning the cowboys for a Cap violation. It seems that the NFL is sanctioning for something NOT covered in a CBA, but rather the Bylaws. I wonder if this sets a precedent for teams not going to court against the NFL, but rather arbitration? Seems goofy, since the Bylaws didn't set up the arb board. What Would Al Say? Also very sloppy that the Arb judges havent been set up yet and it is 8 months since the CBA was agreed to....

I think the two teams also have a court-based claim against the NFL alone under the bylaws of the NFL.

This is really just the NFL wanting to enforce collusion. Going to be tricky.

Because the Boys/Skins included the NFLPA in its assertions, they are Grieving the issue through the CBA. The arbitration seems to be done by a single arbitrator, reviewed by a 3 man appeal panel if necessary.

The league contends that the arbitration will proceed under Article 15 of the CBA, which provides for “system arbitration” by Special Master Stephen Burbank and review by an Appeals Panel.

Although I note for the forum that Stephen Burbank is no longer a Special Master in this matter. There is none.

I think the league, in the future, should mandate the rules if there's ever an uncapped year. Having an unwritten rule that says teams can't dump contract accelerations into the uncapped year of 2010 is now costing the Redskins $36 million and Dallas $10 million, and whether or not the two teams win their appeals of the sanction, the NFL has to be clearer, with written rules, about what's allowed and what isn't when they write provisions in future CBAs -- if there's ever a provision for an uncapped year or years.

The reason the "unwritten rules" were not written was not negligence, but simply the "unwritten rules" were contrary to the negotiated CBA and consequently were illegal collusion.

The rules WERE written. No cap in 2010. Period. If actions in 2010 COULD have been within the CBA and sanctionable by the league, then they limited the players and should have been in the CBA. Period.